The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

sammyk:The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Where I live, I have the choice of Time Warner and AT&T. While I am fortunate to have the choice of two broadband services when some have none, it's like choosing between two bowls of shiat. Neither care about improving as AT&T is more concerned about wireless and Time Warner knows that AT&T is no real threat to them. The fastest service I can get at my house today is 50Mb for $99.95 a month. I have 10Mb service which is $49.95 a month. 1Gb for $70 a month? I'd sign up for that in a New York minute.

Yay you old telcoms, shame shame! I've got 1Gb network right to every desktop in my house but can you match that when I hook it into your network? No! You slow-ass monsters really need to innovate and get with the times. If I can do that upgrade for like almost free surely you can too, right?

/honestly though, any competition for the incumbent ISPs regardless of how cherry picked or limited is good for us all

sammyk:The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

theflatline:The telecoms have the bandwidth, have for a decade, they just pretend they do not.

Apart from fiber to the house, which can definitively provide gbit speeds; show me a cable or DSL modem, and last mile plant infrastructure that can push those speeds?

AFAIK, the best cable can do, on a docsis 3 modem wide open with 8 bonded chanels, can go ~340mbit. DSL can do something like ~400mbit. Now, tell me what legal thing can you find on the internet that can fully take advantage of even a 100mbit pipe? (Hint: host bottlenecks)

My dsl comes in at a whopping 17k. That's slower than my modem in 1993. But I happen to live in KCK and my fiberhood is scheduled to be built next summer. If the 1-gig claim holds up, I'll see a 58000x speed increase.

This fiberhood qualified on Labor day and contractors were in my yard the very next day cutting new cable and shoring up utility poles.

Dear Jerk:My dsl comes in at a whopping 17k. That's slower than my modem in 1993. But I happen to live in KCK and my fiberhood is scheduled to be built next summer. If the 1-gig claim holds up, I'll see a 58000x speed increase.

This fiberhood qualified on Labor day and contractors were in my yard the very next day cutting new cable and shoring up utility poles.

Make sure they clean the fiber before plugging you in. #1 complaint about fiber to the house, dirty fiber/bad install.

Kimpak:sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

sammyk:Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

Kimpak:theflatline: The telecoms have the bandwidth, have for a decade, they just pretend they do not.

Apart from fiber to the house, which can definitively provide gbit speeds; show me a cable or DSL modem, and last mile plant infrastructure that can push those speeds?

AFAIK, the best cable can do, on a docsis 3 modem wide open with 8 bonded chanels, can go ~340mbit. DSL can do something like ~400mbit. Now, tell me what legal thing can you find on the internet that can fully take advantage of even a 100mbit pipe? (Hint: host bottlenecks)

I didn't say anything about what was required to connect it to your home, I said that telcos have the bandwidth... You are reading a little too much into my post.

Kimpak:sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

Actually, in some areas big players have agreements in place and share infrastructure, or rent from each other.

theflatline:Kimpak: theflatline: The telecoms have the bandwidth, have for a decade, they just pretend they do not.

Apart from fiber to the house, which can definitively provide gbit speeds; show me a cable or DSL modem, and last mile plant infrastructure that can push those speeds?

AFAIK, the best cable can do, on a docsis 3 modem wide open with 8 bonded chanels, can go ~340mbit. DSL can do something like ~400mbit. Now, tell me what legal thing can you find on the internet that can fully take advantage of even a 100mbit pipe? (Hint: host bottlenecks)

I didn't say anything about what was required to connect it to your home, I said that telcos have the bandwidth... You are reading a little too much into my post.

Maybe, but I think you missed the point of mine. ISP's DO have the bandwidth on their backbones, they make no secret of that. Just review an ISP's enterprise level services. All I was saying is ISP's DON'T have the bandwidth in the 'last mile' to your house.

theflatline:Kimpak: sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

Actually, in some areas big players have agreements in place and share infrastructure, or rent from each other.

True, but say your competing in the same town with the other guy. In my opinion sharing infrastructure wouldn't work. Both companies would have essentially the same services at the same price. So now you're back to deciding if you want to purchase a turd sandwich or a giant douche.

Kimpak:theflatline: Kimpak: sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

Actually, in some areas big players have agreements in place and share infrastructure, or rent from each other.

True, but say your competing in the same town with the other guy ...

This thesis is based upon the assumption that the current holders of those monopolies are offering the best and cheapest service they can under their current cost framework, despite their lack of competition.Are you by any chance a bridge salesman by trade?

Whilst I do in part agree with what you're saying remember to factor in a few things: The country (both mine and yours) is criss-crossed with fibre the vast majority unlit and a fair chunk owned by Google already (so no lease costs, etc.) they already run a fairly large NOC dealing with their other global services (Search, Mail, etc.) so it's not like a fresh construction job more expanding existing facilities.

The tricky part would be the content providers I agree; I can't see Time-Warner being too friendly to negotiate with as an example off the top-of-my-head.

Did you miss the part where they're introducing this in the heartland?

This may come as a shock to some people, but there are large city's in the heartland. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't live in New York or Los Angeles.

Yeah, KCMO/KS is the 22nd largest CSA in the country. Contrary to popular belief, it's not endless swaths of farmland.

Perhaps, but we've been told for years that no city in the US was dense enough to pull it off, except possibly New York. Google just showed it can be done, even in a middling metropolitan area. Instead of parroting the excuses of the incumbent ISP, you should be asking them, "Why not here, again?"

My most sincere hope is that Google takes this beyond the "demo" phase and really becomes a disruption in the marketplace. Because, let's face it, the telecommunications marketplace is in severe need of some disruption.

There's clearly some sort of agreement between providers, where they all decided to keep their old infrastructure and simply just put bandwidth caps on everyone. So instead of spending money to provide better service, they can all just make more money penalizing anyone who goes over their limit. There's no other explanation for why they're all comfortable with outdated infrastructure and have no interest in outdoing the competition.

It's starting to creep in to Canada now too, with the two main providers doing the same, and starting to put bandwidth caps on everyone. Thankfully where i am exists one of the few smaller entities that isn't playing the bandwidth cap game.

jso2897:Kimpak: theflatline: Kimpak: sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

Actually, in some areas big players have agreements in place and share infrastructure, or rent from each other.

True, but say your competing in the same town with the o ...

Why? Are you in the market for a bridge? I've got a nice one in the New York area, I'm willing to sell cheap. Its been on the market for awhile.

True, that scenario is all hypothetical but that's all I have to work with. To put it another way though, cable and phone companies are contracted by your local government just like power companies. For many of the same reasons. The chief among them I've said before, infrastructure. You only have x amount of room for cabling on poles and in the ground. The companies might be able to have co locations for head-end equipment and some backbone, but again your last mile service is going to be the sticky wicket.

Kimpak Make sure they clean the fiber before plugging you in. #1 complaint about fiber to the house, dirty fiber/bad install.

I can believe that. Up until a few years ago, I'd see fiber connectors that looked like they had been cleaned with sandpaper. Since fiber scopes have become more common, fiber's been staying a lot more clean.

Did you miss the part where they're introducing this in the heartland?

This may come as a shock to some people, but there are large city's in the heartland. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't live in New York or Los Angeles.

Yeah, KCMO/KS is the 22nd largest CSA in the country. Contrary to popular belief, it's not endless swaths of farmland.

Perhaps, but we've been told for years that no city in the US was dense enough to pull it off, except possibly New York. Google just showed it can be done, even in a middling metropolitan area. Instead of parroting the excuses of the incumbent ISP, you should be asking them, "Why not here, again?"

My most sincere hope is that Google takes this beyond the "demo" phase and really becomes a disruption in the marketplace. Because, let's face it, the telecommunications marketplace is in severe need of some disruption.

Google can do it, because Google is a behemoth. Google has the capitol to spend on building this network from the ground up. Who else can spend the cash to take the gamble on this? Maaaybe, TW or Comcast for cable ISP's. Maybe AT&T or Verizon for DSL ISP's. That's still not all that much competition and it isn't going to help really small towns of a few thousand. That being said, if Google can pull it off and make this service nationwide, provide to small communities at the same prices they are currently offered....I'll be first in line to subscribe.

As it is, what Google has right now is a real world equivalent to the Arc reactor in the first Iron Man movie. Yeah, it works but its a publicity stunt. I just hope Google has a Tony Stark to bring the tech to the masses.

HeartBurnKid:Perhaps, but we've been told for years that no city in the US was dense enough to pull it off, except possibly New York. Google just showed it can be done, even in a middling metropolitan area. Instead of parroting the excuses of the incumbent ISP, you should be asking them, "Why not here, again?"

Indeed. I live in Bern, Switzerland (population ~125,000). My cable company will sell me 100Mbps service for ~80/month[1]. It's fiber-to-the-building and coax through the walls. Swisscom, the major telco, also offers fiber-to-the-building, as does Sunrise (another telco), and the electric company (they already run power wires everywhere, why not fiber?).

Yes, major cities in the US are usually located quite far apart, but the intercity backhaul fiber is already laid and relatively cheap to put more down if needed.

If there can be sufficient competition for high-speed connections in a city of less than 150,000, there should be no reason why similarly sized cities in the US don't have similar options.

[1] Since we use 802.11g, it doesn't make much sense to do this so we have their 25Mbps internet + TV (including ESPN for US sports) package for the same price. Works out pretty well.

Kimpak:Google can do it, because Google is a behemoth. Google has the capitol to spend on building this network from the ground up. Who else can spend the cash to take the gamble on this?

It's not really that big of an undertaking. Around the globe people get blistering fast internet dirt cheap. In Japan for example a 160mb/s service just costs 20 bucks a month. Oh, and it's uncapped, of course.

The only thing holding the US back are the ISP's deciding to just put caps on everyone instead of upgrading their services. I sincerely hope google sets them straight.

heypete:HeartBurnKid: Perhaps, but we've been told for years that no city in the US was dense enough to pull it off, except possibly New York. Google just showed it can be done, even in a middling metropolitan area. Instead of parroting the excuses of the incumbent ISP, you should be asking them, "Why not here, again?"

Indeed. I live in Bern, Switzerland (population ~125,000). My cable company will sell me 100Mbps service for ~80/month[1]. It's fiber-to-the-building and coax through the walls. Swisscom, the major telco, also offers fiber-to-the-building, as does Sunrise (another telco), and the electric company (they already run power wires everywhere, why not fiber?).

Yes, major cities in the US are usually located quite far apart, but the intercity backhaul fiber is already laid and relatively cheap to put more down if needed.

If there can be sufficient competition for high-speed connections in a city of less than 150,000, there should be no reason why similarly sized cities in the US don't have similar options.

[1] Since we use 802.11g, it doesn't make much sense to do this so we have their 25Mbps internet + TV (including ESPN for US sports) package for the same price. Works out pretty well.

In the U.S. this is true only of largish citys. I don't have the exact statistics handy, but the vast majority of towns are relatively small, so fiber infrastructure is hit or miss. As for the long haul fiber, most of that is owned by a handful of companies. (Level 3, AT&T, Paetec) A lot of ISP's have to pay leases to those companies, how much you pay depends on your bargaining power. Its insanely expensive to run your own long haul fiber, you have to consider the physical hardware (wires), workforce (Pole climbers, ditch diggers), licences from governments to obtain easements for running said fiber. Again I don't have the exact numbers but I believe this equals somewhere in the tens of thousands of dollars per mile.

J. Frank Parnell:Kimpak: Google can do it, because Google is a behemoth. Google has the capitol to spend on building this network from the ground up. Who else can spend the cash to take the gamble on this?

It's not really that big of an undertaking. Around the globe people get blistering fast internet dirt cheap. In Japan for example a 160mb/s service just costs 20 bucks a month. Oh, and it's uncapped, of course.

The only thing holding the US back are the ISP's deciding to just put caps on everyone instead of upgrading their services. I sincerely hope google sets them straight.

Japan is also roughly the size of a single state in the U.S. Less miles of cable to run equals more money to spend elsewhere on your network. Plus you have to remember your ISP is not a not-for-profit organization. lol, they're going to charge exactly as much as your willing to pay.

Kimpak:sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

You are exactly right. Anytime you are delivering a service that requires a wire of any type the logical result off free markets is going to result in regional monopolies. Doesn't matter if its phone, electricity, television or internet. In the case of all monopolies the customer eventually gets screwed in the end. These local monopolies have caused the internet service in this country to fall behind, well everybody. Here is a slideshow(I warned you) of the top 15 countries for broadband. The U.S. is not on the list but there is a country called Moldova that I have never heard of on the list. Link

Generation_D:Google just wants more information about you to harvest, and this is a way to get it. You are the product. Giving you bandwidth is how they plan to acquire you.

Yea, and in Google's case I don't have an issue. I get so much value from my dealings with Google that I have very few complaints. Gmail works well, same for their search. And the Android phones I've had work fine. The tablets may not be up to par with Apple's but I okay with the tablet's functionality. So what if Google is basically an advertising company? They do a lot for me.

sammyk:Kimpak: sammyk: Kimpak: sammyk: The only way we will ever get decent broadband in this country is to break up the local monopolies. Internet service is not being sold in a free market pure and simple. They have zero competition so why should they invest in their infrastructures? If I had actual choice it would take me milliseconds to fire time-warner.

Oh really? Most major city's at least have at least 1 of each of the following: DSL, Cable, Fiber to the House, Satalite, wireless.

Some have multiples. There is competition, however it usually falls out that there is a clear 'better' choice of them all. The majority gets that choice then complains about it claiming 'monopoly'. Don't like your cable internet, get DSL. Don't like DSL, use wireless.

I said actual choice. I work from home full time and I need more speed than DSL or wireless can do. They just don't come close to providing what I need. We do not have any fiber available so I am stuck with cable technology and there is only one game in town. I have yet to live someplace that has more than one cable provider available.

I can agree with that, but a big reason why there are not multiple cable providers is infrastructure. Towns don't want a brazillion cable wires hanging from their utility poles. That's one reason anyway. Another reason is cost of infrastructure. It just isn't feasible for a cable company (or DSL for that matter) to run parallel wire with a competitor. If competition was at its best and 2 companies each have 50% share of the market. I would assume 50% isn't going to be enough to stay in business in a smaller community, on a cost per customer basis. So, either both companies join forces and merge to become 1 company, or one goes out of business because its clearly crappier than the other one.

You are exactly right. Anytime you are delivering a service that requires a wire of any type the logical result off free markets is going to result in regional monopolies. Doesn't matter if ...

I agree with a part of your statement. More competition is definitely better, but as the U.S. is right now I don't see a viable way to achieve this. That doesn't mean there isn't a solution, but nobody has thought of one yet.

As far as that list, again all of those country's represent about the area of 1 large U.S. state. If I was to start an ISP with a decent amount of capitol and focused on a single state of the union, and had government subsidies (which many of these country's do) I could build an network comparable to Moldova's as well. Now take Moldova's ISP, their gov. drops the subsidies (if there are any) and in some freak of politics, Moldova now encompass all of Europe....their numbers are going to be drastically reduced.

The largest American providers would rather impress Wall Street with lowered payroll numbers, than impress customers with improvements in bandwidth that the average customer would already describe as adequate. Google won't shame anyone until they build in the top markets, and they were delayed by stupid political hurdles in what they thought would be the easiest market in the country (KCK).

Kimpak:As far as that list, again all of those country's represent about the area of 1 large U.S. state. If I was to start an ISP with a decent amount of capitol and focused on a single state of the union, and had government subsidies (which many of these country's do) I could build an network comparable to Moldova's as well. Now take Moldova's ISP, their gov. drops the subsidies (if there are any) and in some freak of politics, Moldova now encompass all of Europe....their numbers are going to be drastically reduced.

Ukraine is about the size of Texas. Sweden is a bit larger than Montana and has a similar population distribution. Japan is similarly sized. Finland is closer in size to New Mexico. All of those are more than twice the size of the Boston-DC megalopolitan corridor, which is itself bigger than the SoCal and NorCal megalopoli.

Size and/or density really are not the problem when it comes to providing broadband to a majority of the population of the US. But I'm willing to bet that the farming communities of Moldova don't have the ultra-fast broadband you find in the cities, either.

Incorrigible Astronaut:This may come as a shock to some people, but there are large city's in the heartland. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't live in New York or Los Angeles.

Yeah, KCMO/KS is the 22nd largest CSA in the country. Contrary to popular belief, it's not endless swaths of farmland.

Except that... it is. Ignoring the west coast (and I do mean coast, because 90% of the CA/OR/WA population is within 100 miles of the coast) and Texas, once you go west of the Mississippi River, there is: Minn-SP, KCMO/KS, Denver, OKC, SLC, Vegas, PHX, Omaha, ABQ, spread out among a whole lot of nothing.

Dear Jerk:The largest American providers would rather impress Wall Street with lowered payroll numbers, than impress customers with improvements in bandwidth that the average customer would already describe as adequate. Google won't shame anyone until they build in the top markets, and they were delayed by stupid political hurdles in what they thought would be the easiest market in the country (KCK).

This! ISP's are always looking to increase speeds, but only if it can be cheaply done. Again, these are not not-for-profit companies. I'm willing to bet that most people are happy with their current bandwidth. In the U.S. even if you had Google's gbit service, there isn't a whole lot of things out there that can make full use of it.

Denying that population density plays a role in these statistics is tantamount to denying climate change.

If Google thinks everyone in the U.S. can have gbit service for peanuts a month, then put up or shut up. Roll it out to an entire region. Bonus points if its to those large swaths of nothing people seem to think is between the coasts.

LazarusLong42:Kimpak: As far as that list, again all of those country's represent about the area of 1 large U.S. state. If I was to start an ISP with a decent amount of capitol and focused on a single state of the union, and had government subsidies (which many of these country's do) I could build an network comparable to Moldova's as well. Now take Moldova's ISP, their gov. drops the subsidies (if there are any) and in some freak of politics, Moldova now encompass all of Europe....their numbers are going to be drastically reduced.

Ukraine is about the size of Texas. Sweden is a bit larger than Montana and has a similar population distribution. Japan is similarly sized. Finland is closer in size to New Mexico. All of those are more than twice the size of the Boston-DC megalopolitan corridor, which is itself bigger than the SoCal and NorCal megalopoli.

Size and/or density really are not the problem when it comes to providing broadband to a majority of the population of the US. But I'm willing to bet that the farming communities of Moldova don't have the ultra-fast broadband you find in the cities, either.

Incorrigible Astronaut: This may come as a shock to some people, but there are large city's in the heartland. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't live in New York or Los Angeles.

Yeah, KCMO/KS is the 22nd largest CSA in the country. Contrary to popular belief, it's not endless swaths of farmland.

Except that... it is. Ignoring the west coast (and I do mean coast, because 90% of the CA/OR/WA population is within 100 miles of the coast) and Texas, once you go west of the Mississippi River, there is: Minn-SP, KCMO/KS, Denver, OKC, SLC, Vegas, PHX, Omaha, ABQ, spread out among a whole lot of nothing.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. If I'm an ISP in just that area you describe, I'm still restricted by technology and politics. Cable and DSL companies are restricted by their respective technologys which is going to top out at ~400mibs. Fiber to the house, as far as I know, is the only way to get the kind of speeds Google is proposing. Now, if I'm Comcast and already have a huge HFC network (for last mile service), I'm going to keep on using that. Just because of some statistics I'm not going to gut my entire HFC network, sell it on ebay, and then build out fiber to the house. It just isn't going to happen.

Actually, that was in USD. I was an idiot and left off the dollar sign, though. It's CHF 75/month for 100Mbps. We pay CHF 74/month for 25 Mbps, TV, and local phone service (which we don't use as my wife and I have mobiles).

Yeah, the pricing isn't bad and the speeds are good enough for anything I need them for these days.

Kimpak:Dear Jerk: The largest American providers would rather impress Wall Street with lowered payroll numbers, than impress customers with improvements in bandwidth that the average customer would already describe as adequate. Google won't shame anyone until they build in the top markets, and they were delayed by stupid political hurdles in what they thought would be the easiest market in the country (KCK).

This! ISP's are always looking to increase speeds, but only if it can be cheaply done. Again, these are not not-for-profit companies. I'm willing to bet that most people are happy with their current bandwidth. In the U.S. even if you had Google's gbit service, there isn't a whole lot of things out there that can make full use of it.

Denying that population density plays a role in these statistics is tantamount to denying climate change.

If Google thinks everyone in the U.S. can have gbit service for peanuts a month, then put up or shut up. Roll it out to an entire region. Bonus points if its to those large swaths of nothing people seem to think is between the coasts.

Pretty much this.

I moved overseas and was blown away by the internet speeds I could get. 100mbps plans for less than I was paying Comcast in the states. Naturally, I jumped at it. What I've found is that - 99.999% of the time I have no need for that amount of bandwidth. Most of the time, the limiting factor in a download isn't my bandwidth - it's the server.

I dropped down to the 50mbps plan and outside of the speed test results - I can't tell a difference. Most people really aren't willing to pay more for faster speeds.

Kimpak:I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. If I'm an ISP in just that area you describe, I'm still restricted by technology and politics. Cable and DSL companies are restricted by their respective technologys which is going to top out at ~400mibs. Fiber to the house, as far as I know, is the only way to get the kind of speeds Google is proposing. Now, if I'm Comcast and already have a huge HFC network (for last mile service), I'm going to keep on using that. Just because of some statistics I'm not going to gut my entire HFC network, sell it on ebay, and then build out fiber to the house. It just isn't going to happen.

No, perhaps not...but why not simply lay fiber to the home for new installations rather than having to put in fiber-to-cable converters? They're already laying cables for new installations, so there really wouldn't be any significant extra costs (other than for the fiber itself, which really shouldn't be a major factor -- labor's the big cost).

When one is doing maintenance or replacement of existing cable lines (as entropy's a biatch and things need to be replaced), replace it with fiber.

heypete:Kimpak: I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. If I'm an ISP in just that area you describe, I'm still restricted by technology and politics. Cable and DSL companies are restricted by their respective technologys which is going to top out at ~400mibs. Fiber to the house, as far as I know, is the only way to get the kind of speeds Google is proposing. Now, if I'm Comcast and already have a huge HFC network (for last mile service), I'm going to keep on using that. Just because of some statistics I'm not going to gut my entire HFC network, sell it on ebay, and then build out fiber to the house. It just isn't going to happen.

No, perhaps not...but why not simply lay fiber to the home for new installations rather than having to put in fiber-to-cable converters? They're already laying cables for new installations, so there really wouldn't be any significant extra costs (other than for the fiber itself, which really shouldn't be a major factor -- labor's the big cost).

When one is doing maintenance or replacement of existing cable lines (as entropy's a biatch and things need to be replaced), replace it with fiber.

Ok, all of my experience is in the Cable ISP world. Here's how the internet works (simplified) according to a cable modem.

Modem say'shiato a CMTS (fancy router), CMTS say's hello to a switch, switch says hello to a router all this is copper wire more or less. Then from the router it can go directly to the world, or maybe hit a fiber ring then out to the world (fiber). Now, there can be a bit between the modem and a CMTS that is transported by fiber if its got a particularly long distance to go. If the distance isn't long is just going to stay on copper.

Soo, given that most of your existing routing and switching is copper, building out fiber to the house doesn't really help unless you replace all of your head end equipment to receive light rather than RF. This is what business customers pay for and it isn't cheap.